How do you argue against this? - Atheist Nexus2015-03-03T23:39:48Zhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/how-do-you-argue-against-this?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2217925&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHere is the link to Snopes.
h…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22179252013-04-21T20:43:29.083ZJohn Aultmanhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnAultman
<p>Here is the link to Snopes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp">http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp</a></p>
<p>Here is the link to Snopes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp">http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp</a></p> I'm not a scientist so I'd ap…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22178722013-04-21T20:36:55.048ZGreghttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/GregPeyton
<p>I'm not a scientist so I'd appreciate some help in thinking this through.</p>
<p>The instructor demonstrated the student had no reason to believe in god other than faith. Correct me if I'm wrong but the student attempted to demonstrate that science (and the instructor, as a stand in), knew nothing because it didn't know everything. He also attempted to prove that science used nonsensical terms that it could not defend. He used the terms "cold" and "darkness" in the laymans definition in an…</p>
<p>I'm not a scientist so I'd appreciate some help in thinking this through.</p>
<p>The instructor demonstrated the student had no reason to believe in god other than faith. Correct me if I'm wrong but the student attempted to demonstrate that science (and the instructor, as a stand in), knew nothing because it didn't know everything. He also attempted to prove that science used nonsensical terms that it could not defend. He used the terms "cold" and "darkness" in the laymans definition in an attempt to prove that science has no idea what it is doing. Science knows very well that the opposite of heat is a lack of heat. It also knows the opposite of light is a lack of light. It is a laymans definition of the words "cold" and "darkness" that allows them to be used as an opposite. He has attempted to generate a controversy where none exists. Haven't we seen that a million times before?</p>
<p>That evolution cannot be seen on demand isn't evidence that faith is required to believe. If that were true, the entire field of chemistry would collapse. Sure, you can take two chemicals, mix them together and get something predictable, but only predictable in the empirical sense. It takes a web of understanding called science to know why it happens and predict other chemical reactions. Otherwise we'd be saying those reactions were caused to happen on an individual basis by god. Another field where this would apply would be biochemistry.</p>
<p>I'm somewhat irked by the use of "science" as the loyal opposition. Science is a method. The true opponent of religion, or faith, is logic and understanding. Any way of life that isn't based on "god did it" is actually a threat to religion.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP, is the bulk of the argument what would be considered a false equivalence?</p> I agree Brandi. Religious id…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22176102013-04-21T17:43:56.395ZLilliehttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/Lillie
<p>I agree Brandi. Religious ideas began long before the Bible existed and was in response to misunderstood disasters in the natural world like storms, earthquakes, etc. These ideas were expanded upon (and exaggerated around campfire stories) to result in the hodge podge of a Bible we have today.</p>
<p>I agree Brandi. Religious ideas began long before the Bible existed and was in response to misunderstood disasters in the natural world like storms, earthquakes, etc. These ideas were expanded upon (and exaggerated around campfire stories) to result in the hodge podge of a Bible we have today.</p> Hmmm ... "The link between ma…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22176082013-04-21T17:40:09.580ZLoren Millerhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
<p>Hmmm ... "The link between man and god is faith." So ... the relationship between a man who demonstrably exists and an invented concept which has no verifiable existence is a practice of belief without substantiation.<br/><br/>I suppose it follows ... though it's entirely useless.</p>
<p>Hmmm ... "The link between man and god is faith." So ... the relationship between a man who demonstrably exists and an invented concept which has no verifiable existence is a practice of belief without substantiation.<br/><br/>I suppose it follows ... though it's entirely useless.</p> a video with Einstein in it
tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22176772013-04-21T16:59:35.479ZTor Hershmanhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TorHershman
<p>a video with Einstein in it</p>
<p><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eDAV4ebjXwI?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p>a video with Einstein in it</p>
<p><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eDAV4ebjXwI?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p> Loren, thank you for the rese…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22175772013-04-21T14:47:57.506ZDaniel Whttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/Daniel57
<p>Loren, thank you for the research and debunking. The style seemed artificial to me, and Einstein identiifying himself as christian seemed odd.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Also, Einstein and religion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This post looks like one of those chain-letter emails and is a bit too close to theistic for my tastes.</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>The link between man &amp; GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things…</em></p>
<p>Loren, thank you for the research and debunking. The style seemed artificial to me, and Einstein identiifying himself as christian seemed odd.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Also, Einstein and religion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This post looks like one of those chain-letter emails and is a bit too close to theistic for my tastes.</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>The link between man &amp; GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Suspicious....</span></p>
<p> </p> First, it is obvious from the…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22178322013-04-21T14:39:38.845ZNathaniel Summershttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/NathanielSummers
<p>First, it is obvious from the style of the writing that the first and last halves were written by different authors. Einstein was also basically an Atheist. His "god" could be better understood as the foundational principles from which existence arose. Similar to the "ground of being" argument.</p>
<p>Now on to the specifics.</p>
<p>You can't have negative heat?…<br></br></p>
<p>First, it is obvious from the style of the writing that the first and last halves were written by different authors. Einstein was also basically an Atheist. His "god" could be better understood as the foundational principles from which existence arose. Similar to the "ground of being" argument.</p>
<p>Now on to the specifics.</p>
<p>You can't have negative heat?<br/><a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121377-Scientists-Chill-Atoms-to-Negative-Temperatures" target="_blank">Scientists chill atoms to negative temperature.</a></p>
<p>No such thing as darkness?<br/>Sure, whatever. It's a cognitive construct. A symbolic placeholder for "lack of light".</p>
<p>Have we ever seen evolution?<br/>Yes, we have. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5" target="_blank">Many times.</a></p>
<p>We can use various means by which we can determine whether or not something exists which are beyond our senses. No one has ever "seen" an atom either, but we can use specialized equipment which allows us to overcome that limitation. We can also see the evidence for evolution, and yet the evidence for the existence of god(s) doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.</p>
<p>The professor's brain may not have been directly experienced by anyone in the class, but evidence for his brain has. We can conclude, that since a brain is necessary for even rudimentary motor and cognitive function, that he does indeed have one. That is, the evidence we observe points to the fact that the professor has a brain. The evidence, as posited earlier by the professor, points to the Christian god being negligent, evil, powerless, or non-existent.</p> Faith is belief without evide…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-04-21:2182797:Comment:22178232013-04-21T13:36:26.217ZLoren Millerhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
<p>Faith is belief without evidence of any sort (unless you want to count the bible as "evidence"). If I <em>Trust</em> that something is true, that trust is based in evidence. The professor's brain AND the student's are evinced out of a considerable chain of evidence expressed in a consistent correlation between the existence of brains in <em>Homo sapiens</em> and the multiple physical and intellectual capacities of <em>Homo sapiens</em>. If absolutely necessary, the existence of each of…</p>
<p>Faith is belief without evidence of any sort (unless you want to count the bible as "evidence"). If I <em>Trust</em> that something is true, that trust is based in evidence. The professor's brain AND the student's are evinced out of a considerable chain of evidence expressed in a consistent correlation between the existence of brains in <em>Homo sapiens</em> and the multiple physical and intellectual capacities of <em>Homo sapiens</em>. If absolutely necessary, the existence of each of their brains can be verified, using means as crude as a 10-blade or as sophisticated as a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. In the case of the professor, his expertise and qualifications can be verified by diplomas and records, possibly a doctoral thesis and other publications which testify to his right to stand in that classroom and teach.<br/><br/>I should also mention: Einstein, at least as an adult, was a DEIST. There are <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm" target="_blank">multiple quotes</a> from him in which he utterly rejects the concept of a personal god. If Einstein had a god, it was the god of Spinoza, a "god" of order, of the laws of physics and of nature.<br/><br/>I should further mention that <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp" target="_blank">snopes.com</a> has looked into the little vignette you posted and pronounced it FALSE.</p>